If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command tells Navy SEALS to shut the hell up. "For an Elite Force that should be humble and disciplined for life, we are certainly not appearing to be so"   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 317
    More: Followup, elite force, NSW, Navy SEALs, Dutton, military base, military officials, Jeh Johnson, commanders  
•       •       •

12596 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2012 at 6:43 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-04 11:59:09 PM
The Commander of the Naval Special Warfare Department tells the NAVY SEALS to show more discretion and be more humble... also not to brake the law and leak classified information. I don't see the problem with this. You do know every branch of the military has an unwritten rule that you can't wear your uniform if you aren't on base or on active duty, except at special events like parades, weddings and funerals. I think for the Marines this is an actual law they have to follow.

Believe it or not most military people, enlisted men and officers, are quite humble and disciplined and get quite upset when they see another soldier that isn't.
 
2012-09-05 12:04:24 AM
That swift boat sure ran aground, didn't it?
 
2012-09-05 12:21:35 AM
Makes sense to me.
 
2012-09-05 12:22:07 AM
Follow-Up?

Needs a damned HERO tag.
 
2012-09-05 12:48:43 AM
If I were a Navy seal I would do a cute synchronized horn blowing thing and clap my flappers until I had my fill of herring.
 
2012-09-05 01:01:31 AM

brap: If I were a Navy seal I would do a cute synchronized horn blowing thing and clap my flappers until I had my fill of herring.


Well played.
 
2012-09-05 01:30:23 AM
Mark Owen is just a pseudonym for Barack Obama. Follow me here.

Look at it: MARK OWEN - BARACK OBAMA

Take out the BAC, garbage letters (or bank of america, which funded Obama in 2008) and you get ARK.

Take out BAA (Banro corporation, which is an outfit out of the Congo - Africa! Kenya! Obama!) and you have MO. MARK O.

Obama is not only trying to claim he personally killed Osama Bin Laden, but he's also letting out important national security matters. This must end!
 
2012-09-05 01:36:51 AM

Mentat: That swift boat sure ran aground, didn't it?


I'm getting a whiff of an election season hit piece myself. Though of course it could simply be an attention whoring money grab.
 
2012-09-05 01:40:23 AM
If they wanted to be careful, they'd have joined the Coast Guard.
 
2012-09-05 01:49:19 AM
What Science_Guy_3.14159 said. Most SF types tend to keep a low, low profile and not, well, brag and crap or write a book until at least 30 years after the fact of an op. UCMJ and all, and stuff 

go ahead, armchair special ops types, tell me i am wrong, but please- include your class number so i can prove you are not, nor have even been a real specop
 
2012-09-05 01:54:24 AM

alienated: go ahead, armchair special ops types, tell me i am wrong, but please- include your class number so i can prove you are not, nor have even been a real specop


My Grandfather was enlisted Naval Intelligence in Vietnam, and served on the Camp David security staff. (I have his white house medals and service records to prove it. Along with some really interesting gifts from Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson's staff)

He taught me a really valuable lesson that I still hold onto today when dealing with people who claim to have been in the "Special Forces" of any branch: The ones that actually were don't brag about it for the most part. They either don't want you to know, or don't like to talk about it.
 
2012-09-05 02:07:49 AM
There is a reason I have you faved Brony. Your Opa taught you well.
 
2012-09-05 02:08:58 AM
The major reason for political butthurt over this book seems to be that this guy says the mission was a lot more about kill than about "kill or capture".

"No Easy Day," the new pseudonymous book revealed to be by Navy SEAL Mark Bissonnette, claims that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when shot at his Abbottabad compound last May. That's another key discrepancy in a story that's already changed several times since the initial days after Obama, to much acclaim, announced the killing of the Al Qaeda leader.

If you remember, the initial story was that when Bin Laden was shot, he was firing weapons while hiding behind one of his wives who he used as a human shield.
 
2012-09-05 02:10:59 AM

alienated: What Science_Guy_3.14159 said. Most SF types tend to keep a low, low profile and not, well, brag and crap or write a book until at least 30 years after the fact of an op. UCMJ and all, and stuff 

go ahead, armchair special ops types, tell me i am wrong, but please- include your class number so i can prove you are not, nor have even been a real specop


I think this guy thought someone would be as greedy and a big a douchebag as he is and he needed to cash in before someone could beat him to it. I think the guy broke his oath and his word and the idea that you're not supposed to talk in detail about the things you do. I work in network security and have seen some wild sh*t, but I would never tell anyone details about a customer's network or give any info that could identify a customer, whether I have a contract telling me that or not.

There are things you just don't talk about because it's expected to be private.

This guy wants his millions, and the DoD will likely take his money, but I sense he was also angling for a Fox News job or a role on the Republican speaking circuit.
 
2012-09-05 02:24:27 AM

Cubansaltyballs: This guy wants his millions, and the DoD will likely take his money, but I sense he was also angling for a Fox News job or a role on the Republican speaking circuit.


Ha. Indeed. I can see it now- Coming to you, live from Fort Leavenworth ....
 
2012-09-05 02:29:49 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If they wanted to be careful, they'd have joined the Coast Guard.


The Coast Guard does an insane amount of dangerous shiat on a near daily basis.
 
2012-09-05 02:31:09 AM

alienated: Cubansaltyballs: This guy wants his millions, and the DoD will likely take his money, but I sense he was also angling for a Fox News job or a role on the Republican speaking circuit.

Ha. Indeed. I can see it now- Coming to you, live from Fort Leavenworth ....


Pointing out that the people up top have been lying to the public about how things went down right before an election has a tendency to piss those at the top off.

However, they changed the official story of what happened so frequently and so fast that it was already pretty obvious that they were obfuscating the truth.

All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.
 
2012-09-05 02:36:41 AM

BullBearMS: All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.


well, duh. What could we have done ? I mean, besides making a stain on the walls out of him. Could we, even as a nation ruled by law, had a trial ? I am not being facetious here.I see no other solution except his summary execution. armed or not is immaterial at this point. Laden was a cancer and needed to be excised . By any and all means at our disposal. Cold ? yep. I would have done the same to McViegh, given the chance.
 
2012-09-05 02:44:27 AM

BullBearMS: All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.


And I'm perfectly ok with this. I doubt we'd have taken Hitler alive either.
 
2012-09-05 02:50:47 AM

BullBearMS: alienated: Cubansaltyballs: This guy wants his millions, and the DoD will likely take his money, but I sense he was also angling for a Fox News job or a role on the Republican speaking circuit.

Ha. Indeed. I can see it now- Coming to you, live from Fort Leavenworth ....

Pointing out that the people up top have been lying to the public about how things went down right before an election has a tendency to piss those at the top off.

However, they changed the official story of what happened so frequently and so fast that it was already pretty obvious that they were obfuscating the truth.

All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.


WTF are you blubbering about? OK, so there were differences in the reports about exactly what happened. Have you ever in your life managed to read and understand a single word of a book about military history? In case they're beyond your comprehension, here's a little cheat sheet: "Early battlefield reports sometimes are inaccurate and subject to later revision. Rinse and repeat a million times throughout recorded history."
 
2012-09-05 02:51:04 AM

alienated: BullBearMS: All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.

well, duh. What could we have done ? I mean, besides making a stain on the walls out of him. Could we, even as a nation ruled by law, had a trial ? I am not being facetious here.I see no other solution except his summary execution. armed or not is immaterial at this point. Laden was a cancer and needed to be excised . By any and all means at our disposal. Cold ? yep. I would have done the same to McViegh, given the chance.


I'm of two minds on this one.

Obviously, the most convenient outcome for us was that he be killed instead of captured.

However, England, Spain, and India somehow managed to give public trials in a court of law to the people behind their recent terrorist attacks. I'm pretty sure if they can manage it, we can too. We're supposed to be all about the rule of law here in America.
 
2012-09-05 02:51:42 AM
by the way - i am against the death penalty , in a way . State sponsored murder is wrong, in 99% of the time. And this was an item that falls under special circumstances- it is the 1 percent.
So the republicans should be happier.
 
2012-09-05 02:53:04 AM

BullBearMS: However, England, Spain, and India somehow managed to give public trials in a court of law to the people behind their recent terrorist attacks. I'm pretty sure if they can manage it, we can too. We're supposed to be all about the rule of law here in America.


They also didn't contaminate most of their evidence by torturing detainees and holding them for years without trial.

/as far as we know, anyway.
 
2012-09-05 02:55:44 AM

BullBearMS: We're supposed to be all about the rule of law here in America.


Agreed, but, I am for prisoner rights and all, but- no. we saw him be guilty on tv, many times. many died.
the trial was televised by actions. i am not a lawyer, but- i would argue that your client committed many crimes and was armed and dangerous and an escaped war criminal.( if russia still has that warrant out for him )
I am conserving the american peoples money even tho we lost a helo.
 
2012-09-05 02:59:22 AM
And thank the hate the country more than the party party folks or gitmo would be shut. that place is still a place of shame, even after all these years.
We could try all of them anywhere in the us. and we should. Are we that weak we cannot handle the trial of what, 500 people ? I think we have murder trials by that count a year in some cites here .at least in a state.
 
2012-09-05 03:01:23 AM

themindiswatching: They also didn't contaminate most of their evidence by torturing detainees and holding them for years without trial.


Oh, yeesh. Don't get me started.

I saw just yesterday that Attorney General Holder had recently closed the investigations into the people who actually died while being "totally not tortured at all!" by us.

Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the closing without charges of the only two cases under investigation relating to the US torture program: one that resulted in the 2002 death of an Afghan detainee at a secret CIA prison near Kabul, and the other the 2003 death of an Iraqi citizen while in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. This decision, says the New York Times Friday, "eliminat[es] the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the CIA".

Surprise, surprise. Nobody will be charged with anything.
 
2012-09-05 03:21:59 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If they wanted to be careful, they'd have joined the Coast Guard.


Way to shat on our servicemen, Republican scum.

www.uscg.mil
Link
 
2012-09-05 03:26:10 AM

BronyMedic: alienated: go ahead, armchair special ops types, tell me i am wrong, but please- include your class number so i can prove you are not, nor have even been a real specop

My Grandfather was enlisted Naval Intelligence in Vietnam, and served on the Camp David security staff. (I have his white house medals and service records to prove it. Along with some really interesting gifts from Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson's staff)

He taught me a really valuable lesson that I still hold onto today when dealing with people who claim to have been in the "Special Forces" of any branch: The ones that actually were don't brag about it for the most part. They either don't want you to know, or don't like to talk about it.


Y'know, my grandfather was on a Presidential security detail, too.
Of course, the president was Batista, but still...
 
2012-09-05 03:43:21 AM

alienated: We could try all of them anywhere in the us. and we should. Are we that weak we cannot handle the trial of what, 500 people ? I think we have murder trials by that count a year in some cites here .at least in a state.


The problem is that we, as a nation, no longer give a fark about the rule of law. Supposedly, this is the foundational concept behind our entire nation, but it has been shoved aside.

It's been obvious for some time that if you are sufficiently rich or sufficiently politically connected, you won't even be charged with your crimes much less convicted.

None of the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy have been prosecuted.

None of the people who ordered, carried out, or destroyed videotaped evidence of our torture have been prosecuted.

None of the people or companies who took part in illegally spying on Americans have been prosecuted.

People should take some time to read this:

dl.dropbox.com 

It's an excellent look at the problem.
 
2012-09-05 03:50:18 AM

BullBearMS: People should take some time to read this:


thats the problem though- they dont really read anymore. twitter made the gen pop even more add. or adhd . and html somehow, along the way to making pr0n available faster and faster to our desktops, did not make it possible for bookchives read from anywhere, which was the goal of the thing in the first place.
 
2012-09-05 03:51:54 AM
"We'll hunt down bin Laden wherever he's hiding."
"Well, we're not really that concerned about finding him."
"Of course killing bin Laden was what anyone would've done."
"Obama shouldn't have had bin Laden killed, he should've been brought to the U.S. for a proper trial."
"Oh no, we can't possibly bring suspected terrorists to the U.S. for trial."
"Obama is stupid to try to close Gitmo."
"Why didn't Obama close Gitmo like he promised?"
 
2012-09-05 04:01:50 AM

alienated: BullBearMS: People should take some time to read this:

thats the problem though- they dont really read anymore. twitter made the gen pop even more add. or adhd . and html somehow, along the way to making pr0n available faster and faster to our desktops, did not make it possible for bookchives read from anywhere, which was the goal of the thing in the first place.


Then watch "Taxi to the Dark Side".

Here it is free of charge

The only cost is your further disillusionment.
 
2012-09-05 04:03:18 AM

BronyMedic: BullBearMS: All you have to do is admit that we never had any intention whatsoever of taking this guy captive.

And I'm perfectly ok with this. I doubt we'd have taken Hitler alive either.


Yep. Bastard taunted us more than two times. Resistance or execution, I don't care.
 
2012-09-05 04:03:41 AM

propasaurus: "Why didn't Obama close Gitmo like he promised?"


Obama never even tried to close Gitmo. He tried to move it onto US soil (where we would continue to hold people forever without even filing charges) as if the whole problem with Gitmo was that it was located in the Caribbean. Damned warm tropical breezes!

In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Administration officials acknowledged that the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried.


Holding people forever without even charging them with a crime is the problem. Not that it's happening in Cuba. Moving Gitmo onto US soil does not fix the problem.

Here's what the ACLU had to say:

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The creation of a 'Gitmo North' in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

"Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it's occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one's accusers.


Despite the frequency with which the "Congress stopped Obama from closing Gitmo" lie is told, what Congress actually did was prevent Obama from moving Gitmo onto US soil.
 
2012-09-05 04:08:19 AM

mediablitz: alienated: BullBearMS: People should take some time to read this:

thats the problem though- they dont really read anymore. twitter made the gen pop even more add. or adhd . and html somehow, along the way to making pr0n available faster and faster to our desktops, did not make it possible for bookchives read from anywhere, which was the goal of the thing in the first place.

Then watch "Taxi to the Dark Side".

Here it is free of charge

The only cost is your further disillusionment.


I've heard people talk about this, but have never seen it. Thanks.
 
2012-09-05 04:14:58 AM

BullBearMS: propasaurus: "Why didn't Obama close Gitmo like he promised?"

Obama never even tried to close Gitmo. He tried to move it onto US soil (where we would continue to hold people forever without even filing charges) as if the whole problem with Gitmo was that it was located in the Caribbean. Damned warm tropical breezes!

In ordering the federal government to acquire an Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects who are currently held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Obama on Tuesday took a major step toward shutting down the military detention facility that its detractors say had become a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda.

Administration officials acknowledged that the move would require Congressional approval, since Congress now bars Guantánamo detainees from being brought onto American soil unless they face prosecution, and some of the detainees may be indefinitely confined without being tried.

Holding people forever without even charging them with a crime is the problem. Not that it's happening in Cuba. Moving Gitmo onto US soil does not fix the problem.

Here's what the ACLU had to say:

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The creation of a 'Gitmo North' in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.

"Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor's policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it's occurring in Cuba or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration ...


I think the problem is that any information from the prisoners is compromised by Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques. We're stuck with these prisoners.
 
2012-09-05 04:28:14 AM

simplicimus: I think the problem is that any information from the prisoners is compromised by Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques. We're stuck with these prisoners.


yer overthinking it. space them .
 
2012-09-05 04:30:53 AM

alienated: simplicimus: I think the problem is that any information from the prisoners is compromised by Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques. We're stuck with these prisoners.

yer overthinking it. space them .


Well, NASA needs something to do, so that might just work.
 
2012-09-05 04:36:10 AM

alienated: simplicimus: I think the problem is that any information from the prisoners is compromised by Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques. We're stuck with these prisoners.

yer overthinking it. space them .


How about we do something radical, like follow the rule of law.

Prosecute those guilty of the enhanced interrogation techniques.

We are party to international treaties that make this a requirement that we cannot legally ignore. Obama's "Look forward, not back on torture" is purest illegal bullshiat.

Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.
 
2012-09-05 04:42:31 AM

BullBearMS: Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.


Agreed. But, to be perfectly honest- i am really dfrunk and also i do not see how they can get a trial if nobody lets them have one.
 
2012-09-05 04:49:57 AM

BullBearMS: alienated: simplicimus: I think the problem is that any information from the prisoners is compromised by Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques. We're stuck with these prisoners.

yer overthinking it. space them .

How about we do something radical, like follow the rule of law.

Prosecute those guilty of the enhanced interrogation techniques.

We are party to international treaties that make this a requirement that we cannot legally ignore. Obama's "Look forward, not back on torture" is purest illegal bullshiat.

Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.


It would help if people don't freak the fark out when its announced terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are going to be tried in New York.

Both sides are bad, so vote Ron Paul

/I'm not even sure if I'm serious
 
2012-09-05 04:51:28 AM

alienated: BullBearMS: Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.

Agreed. But, to be perfectly honest- i am really dfrunk and also i do not see how they can get a trial if nobody lets them have one.


Well, any public defender could get them freed, and Bush and Cheney would be at the Hague.
 
2012-09-05 04:54:53 AM

alienated: BullBearMS: Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.

Agreed. But, to be perfectly honest- i am really dfrunk and also i do not see how they can get a trial if nobody lets them have one.


Well, as we have seen going way back to Nixon's pardon and all the way up to Obama' refusal to prosecute those guilty of torture (even when the people we tortured freaking died of it), neither of the two parties is interested in the rule of law anymore.

We need another option.
 
2012-09-05 05:11:30 AM

BullBearMS: alienated: BullBearMS: Then we either charge the people in Gitmo (and our other political prisons in places like Bagram, Afghanistan) with crimes or we let them go. Just as the rule of law requires.

Agreed. But, to be perfectly honest- i am really dfrunk and also i do not see how they can get a trial if nobody lets them have one.

Well, as we have seen going way back to Nixon's pardon and all the way up to Obama' refusal to prosecute those guilty of torture (even when the people we tortured freaking died of it), neither of the two parties is interested in the rule of law anymore.

We need another option.


Well, that's why I've been advocating the creation of a third party, from school boards up to congress, starting on the day after election day, because half the country will already be pissed off. Just need a name for it.
 
2012-09-05 05:12:26 AM

BullBearMS: We need another option.


we do. I will think on this for a bit / while. hmmm. Breaking rocks is out, right ?
 
2012-09-05 06:23:10 AM
The account by the writer differs from the administrations press release? Color me shocked! ( sarcasm off )
 
2012-09-05 06:48:06 AM
Although i applaud those men and women who are SEAL members, as i know the training is tough and the missions dangerous, I would have to say i have no problem with this guy writing a book about his experiences. If he's not giving up state secrets, or tactical information that would interfere with upcoming operations, what is the harm? This is still America kinda, and he has a right to write a book about anything he wants.
 
2012-09-05 06:48:42 AM

Science_Guy_3.14159: The Commander of the Naval Special Warfare Department tells the NAVY SEALS to show more discretion and be more humble... also not to brake break the law and leak classified information. I don't see the problem with this. You do know every branch of the military has an unwritten rule that you can't wear your uniform if you aren't on base or on active duty, except at special events like parades, weddings and funerals. I think for the Marines this is an actual law they have to follow.

Believe it or not most military people, enlisted men and officers, are quite humble and disciplined and get quite upset when they see another soldier that isn't.


/ftfy
 
2012-09-05 06:49:21 AM
I learned something today. Gitmo being in Cuba is, apparently, not an issue anymore.

Phew, that's a load off of my mind.
 
2012-09-05 06:50:03 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: Although i applaud those men and women who are SEAL members, as i know the training is tough and the missions dangerous, I would have to say i have no problem with this guy writing a book about his experiences. If he's not giving up state secrets, or tactical information that would interfere with upcoming operations, what is the harm? This is still America kinda, and he has a right to write a book about anything he wants.


America kinda? Doubleplus ungood!
 
Displayed 50 of 317 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report